He was very tired because he'd been working hard all day yesterday.

[jutfrank]

I don't see that at all. Yesterday has past-time reference - the day before today. It does not relate to the moment of speaking.

It has present-time reference in that it relates to now. Yesterday is in relation to today/now only, where today/now is the moment of speaking. I was careful to say that yesterday relates to the moment of speaking, even though it refers to past time. By "present-time reference", I mean that the point of reference is the present time. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[5jj]

Yesterday is in relation to today only.

True, but as I write this post, yesterday refers to 14 April, a day in the past. I see no 'mismatch' in its use in

• When I met him this morning, he was very tired because he'd been working hard all day yesterday.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, I see how I've caused confusion. Obviously, yesterday refers to a time in the past, but it relates to now. Of course, yesterday can only be said today.

If we shift the whole thing back one step into past time, I can better illustrate the mismatch I'm talking about:

He was tired because he'd been working hard the day before.

There's no mismatch here. There are three sequential points in time (now, the time of tiredness, and the time of working hard.) In this sentence, the day before is the time of working hard. Narratively, the day before is one step removed from his being tired, and two steps removed from the moment of speaking.

In the original sentence, even though there are similarly three points in time, it sounds as if there are only two points in time, because yesterday (the time of working hard) is only one step removed from the moment of speaking.

I don't know if I've made that clearer or more opaque!

 

[5jj]

I understand the point you are making, but do not agree that it sounds like only two points in past time. The use of the past perfect continuous in he'd been working hard tells us that there were two points in past time (yesterday), the beginning and the end of the work.
Even the use of the non-progressive form he'd worked hard would imply duration, i.e. a beginning and end point - working. is not an instananous action.

 

[jutfrank]

Y: Is he in the room? (It's 9:00 in the morning)
X: Yes, but he's very tired because he's been working hard all day yesterday.

If the present perfect continuous doesn't work here, why would the past perfect continuous work in the first example sentence?

It doesn't. We normally teach that in present perfect sentences (including present perfect continuous ones), you shouldn't state a specific point in past time. In this sentence, yesterday is a specific point in time, so the sentence is not good. This is another example of what I call a 'mismatch' in reference. There are two quick ways to fix this poor sentence: first, omit yesterday. Second, change the tense in the subordinate clause from present to past (has been working to either was working or worked).

The question of why we don't tend to use past time phrases in present perfect sentences is unimportant to learners but if you want to know my answer, I'll try to explain with a sentence pair:

a) He's very tired because he's been working hard all day yesterday.
b) He's very tired because he's been working hard all day today.

Why is a) wrong where b) is okay? There must be some 'distraction' or 'interference' from the meaning of the word yesterday, right? This is what I call a mismatch of reference. The mismatch is in the relation of the time frame in which the working hard happens to the moment of speaking. Why can't you use a past time phrase where you can use a present time phrase? That's essentially what I think your question is, Michaell.

And the answer, which I think you've almost worked out, is that in sentence b) the time frame within which the working hard happens directly relates to the time of speaking (let's call it 'now')—another way to say that is that it has 'present relevance—and so does today whereas in sentence a) the word yesterday does not relate coherently in that it is one step removed into the past.


(Okay, that just took me nearly an hour to write and edit. I sincerely hope at least one person can understand what I'm talking about!)

 

[jutfrank]

I understand the point you are making, but do not agree that it sounds like only two points in past time.

Ah, okay. You don't sense a mismatch? Fair enough.

The use of the past perfect continuous in he'd been working hard tells us that there were two points in past time (yesterday), the beginning and the end of the work.

Right! In actual fact, there are four points in time. Chronologically:

1) start working hard
2) stop working hard
3) see him/his being tired
4) moment of speaking

Even the use of the non-progressive form he'd worked hard would imply duration, i.e. a beginning and end point - working. is not an instananous action.

I'd disagree with this, depending on what exactly you mean by 'imply'. Of course, any sane person would understand that in reality 'working hard' is an action happening over time, but my understanding of this is that psychologically, worked hard is conceived in the mind aspectually as a single event. In fact, I think that all simple aspect active verb phrases are best conceived as single events. That means that at least for me, there are only three relevant points in time that we're concerned with in this case. It may be more convenient to call working hard a single past event rather than a continuous action with a beginning and end. If you were to draw a timeline for learners, I wonder how you'd represent the VP he'd worked hard? With an 'X' or with a wavy line? I hope you get what I'm asking.

I believe that with linguistic aspect, we're always talking about psychological time rather than physical time, which is a very important distinction to make, in my view.

 

[5jj]

I wonder how you'd represent the VP he'd worked hard? With an 'X' or with a wavy line? I hope you get what I'm asking.

I'd use a line with a start and end point for he had been working - ,
an X for I met him,
and a vertical line for the moment of speaking : .

 

[jutfrank]

I'd use a line with a start and end point for he had been working - View attachment 5251,
an X for I met him,
and a vertical line for the moment of speaking : View attachment 5252.

Thanks, but my question concerned the past perfect simple he had worked hard. Would it still be a line with a start and end point? How would it differ from the continuous version? (By the way, how did you draw that diagram?)

(I'm always interested to compare how expert teachers draw timelines. If any other teachers here care to share their way of doing this, I'll be grateful.)

 

[5jj]

My timelines for the progressive and non-progressive forms would look the same. I would clearly not use timelines to bring out the differences between these two forms.

(By the way, how did you draw that diagram?)

With great difficulty!

I think that all simple aspect active verb phrases are best conceived as single events.

I think differently.

 

[Michaelll]

• When I met him this morning, he was very tired because he'd been working hard all day yesterday.

I think that this sentence isn't so good because the usual use of the past perfect continuous indicates that the action went on over a period of time that continued to the point in time mentioned in the sentence (or that we have in mind). But which is the point in time here? "When I met him this morning" - this is the point, but 'his' working didn't continue up to this point, but finished the previous day (yesterday).

• When I met him this morning, he was very tired because he'd been working hard.
• When I met him this morning, he was very tired because he was working hard all day yesterday.

 

[5jj]

Where did you read /hear that sentence? It's fine.

 

[Michaelll]

Where did you read /hear that sentence? It's fine.

They were all mine. I tried to translate this idea from my language.